JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.1998 passed in Title Appeal No. 07/1996 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cachar, Silchar thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1995 passed by the Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Cachar at Silchar, passed in Title Suit No. 126/1994 decreeing the suit with cost. 2. I have heard Mr. P. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants and Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit praying for declaration of their share of jote and tenancy right over the suit land described at Schedule I specified in Schedule II for a preliminary decree for partition of their share without disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs by restraining the defendants from alienating or changing the nature and feature of the suit land. 4. The claim of the plaintiff is that plaintiff No. 1 Shri Majamil Ali Choudhury @ Abur Rahman Choudhury, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff No. 2 i.e. late Halima Bibi, Habib Ali defendant No. 1 (since deceased) and late Haris Ali, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff No. 2 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who are sons and daughters of late Makbul Ali took joint settlement of the areas of land measuring 10 Bighas 9 Kathas and 10 Chataks of land described in the schedule from Wakf Estate created by one Major Subedar Jamaluddin Ahmed about 28/29 years back and also used to realize rents from the Landlord in the year 1971 during the operation of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, by issuing khatian in their names being khatian No. 2 on having found physical possession over this land as tenants and each of them had their 1/4th as share of 2 Bighas 12 Kathas 6 Chataks and 10 Gandas of land over the suit property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that one of the joint tenants, Haris Ali having died leaving his wife and three daughters and as per Muslim Law and the plaintiff in addition to 1/4th share and also inherited became owner and possessor of land measuring 3 Bighas 2 Kathas 8 Chataks 1 Kora 1 Kranti of land belonging to Haris Ali. It is also pleaded that each daughter including Asarunnessa became the owner and possessor of 8 Kathas 11 Chataks 15 Gonda of jote by right of inheritance. The total land belonging to the plaintiffs stands at 6 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Chataks 19 Gonda 1 Kora 2 Kranti as described in Schedule II of the land. 5. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree for partition of the suit land declaring their rights, title and interest over the same. Defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit and on his death, his heirs filed written statement as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 contesting the suit by filing the statements. Apart from taking usual available plea, it is contended that defendant No 1, Habib Ali his mother, Parina Bibi and his brother, Haris Ali purchased the jote right of both schedule land from one Thambau Singh, tenant under Subedar Major Jamaluddin of Madhurbond in 1958 in respect of the area of land measuring 13 Bighas 13 Kathas 10 Chataks, which is under their possession. As such plaintiff No. 1 not being such a purchaser cannot have any claim of such right over the schedule land. It is also the case of the defendants that the khatian has been obtained by the plaintiffs in collusion with the revenue staff and as such they cannot claim for partition of the suit land. On the basis of the pleadings, learned Court below framed the following issues : 1. Is there any cause of action for this suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are jote owners and possessors of 6 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Chataks 19 Gondas 1 Kora 2 Kranti of jote land? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of their share of jote land over the lands of Schedule 1 of plaint and 6. To what relief/reliefs parties are entitled to? 6. During the course of trial, plaintiffs examined as many as 4 (four) witnesses and exhibited the khatian as Ext. 1, while defendants examined 2 (two) witnesses and also exhibited two sale deeds vide Exts. A and B. At the end of the trial, learned Munsiff decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, which was carried into Title Appeal No. 07/1996 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1 Cachar at Silchar. 1, while defendants examined 2 (two) witnesses and also exhibited two sale deeds vide Exts. A and B. At the end of the trial, learned Munsiff decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, which was carried into Title Appeal No. 07/1996 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1 Cachar at Silchar. The first appellate Court upon perusal of the materials available on record and upon consideration of the relevant evidence, both oral and documentary dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, this second appeal by the defendants. 7. This second appeal was admitted to be, heard on 13.11.1998 on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the learned Courts below also committed an, error on a substantial question of law while interpreting Ext. 1, A and B and arrived at an erroneous decision making the findings perverse? 2. Whether the respondent/plaintiff's suit is bad because of non-joinder of necessary parties? 8. At the outset, Mr. P. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly submitted that as regard the substantial question No. 2 there is nothing as regard to support of the same and accordingly he has not pressed the same. How ever, the learned Counsel in support of substantial question No. 1, argued that the plaintiffs have no basis for claiming any right, title and interest over the suit land and consequently are not entitled to claim for partition in respect of the suit land on the strength of Ext. 1. It is strenuously submitted that Ext. 1 document was prepared in collusion with the revenue staff without having any possession over the suit land, the further submission on the basis of Exts. A and B the appellant defendants have got exclusive right of possession/jote right over the suit land and plaintiffs are not entitled to deny or dispute such right. It is also contended that there is no settlement of the land in favour of the plaintiffs either by the landlord or by the original tenant and as such the claim of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. 9. Per contra, Mr. Purkaystha, submits that both the Courts below are concur rent in their findings as regard Ext. It is also contended that there is no settlement of the land in favour of the plaintiffs either by the landlord or by the original tenant and as such the claim of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. 9. Per contra, Mr. Purkaystha, submits that both the Courts below are concur rent in their findings as regard Ext. 1, khatian prepared by the revenue authority which confers valid right in their favour, title and interest over the suit land and a presumption about the correctness of the said document having attached by the statute, the same cannot be disbelieved or ignored. Both the learned Courts below having decreed the suit on the basis of the said document i.e. Ext. 1, the findings are concurrent and is not liable to be disturbed in the second appeal. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The submissions of the learned Counsel led me to go through Exts. 1, A and B exhibited in the suit. Exts. A and B are the two sale deeds on the basis of which the appellants/defendants claimed their jote right over the suit land. Admittedly, Ext. A, which was executed by one Thambau Singh in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and others. 11. During the relevant time, the Assam (Temporary Settled Districts Area) Tenancy Act, 1935 was in operation. Under the said Act, an occupancy has unrestricted right of transfer in respect of his holding but no transfer would be binding on the landlord unless a written notice thereof is given to such landlord. Admittedly, no such notice was given to the landlord effecting the said transfer by Shri Thambau Singh and consequently the provisions of Section 19 of the Assam (Temporary Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, 1935 was not complied with and the said transfer was not binding upon the landlord. As regards Ext. B, the same is a document by which the ownership of the land has been transferred but not the tenancy right. The issue involved in this appeal relates to tenancy right and not ownership right and as such the learned appellate Court has rightly observed that the said Ext. B does not come in aid of the defendants as against the claim of the plaintiffs. Turning to Ext. The issue involved in this appeal relates to tenancy right and not ownership right and as such the learned appellate Court has rightly observed that the said Ext. B does not come in aid of the defendants as against the claim of the plaintiffs. Turning to Ext. 1, the said documents demonstrate that it is a khatian prepared under the Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act 1971 wherein the names of the plaintiffs are existed. The said khatian is numbered as khatian No. 2 which is in respect of Mouza-Jamalpur covering the suit land. A khatian is a document of record of right prepared under the Act, Chapter X of the Act provides for preparation of the maintenance on 'record of right' of the tenants. Section 56 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 mentions about the particulars that requires to be recorded in the record of right of tenants. Under Section 57after preparing the draft record of right the settlement officer shall publish the draft in prescribed manner and for the prescribed period and shall receive and consider any objections and such objections are to be made relating to the entry made therein. Thereafter final publication of the draft khatian is to be made and the publication is to be certified by the competent authority. In the absence of such certificate, a certificate signed by the Deputy Commissioner of a District stating that a record of right has been finally published on a specified date shall be conclusive proof of such publication. There is no dispute regarding issuance of such final publication of the said khatian i.e. khatian No. 2. The compliance of the shareholding possession Section 58(1) attaches a presumption as to final publication and as to correctness of the entry in the record of rights finally published as part of such fact unless proved by evidence to be incorrect. Under the said Act, there are also provisions for appeal against such order passed by the Settlement Officer/Deputy Commissioner before the appellant authority. The appellants/defendants did not exercise any right of appeal and Ext. 1 has, in the meantime, attained its finality. The preparation of record of right under Chapter X and preparation and signing of any document contained therein for maintenance of record of rights of tenants are beyond the cognizance of Civil Court as provided under Section 66 of the Act. 12. Although, Mr. 1 has, in the meantime, attained its finality. The preparation of record of right under Chapter X and preparation and signing of any document contained therein for maintenance of record of rights of tenants are beyond the cognizance of Civil Court as provided under Section 66 of the Act. 12. Although, Mr. Roy sought to raise an issue to the effect that Ext. 1 was fraudulently obtained but there is neither any effective pleading nor any iota of evidence to that effect. In such a situation, Ext. 1 must be held to be prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules therein conferring right upon the plaintiffs. 13. Both the Courts below duly considered the Ext 1, khatian No. 2 and have not committed any error in this regard. 14. That being the position, the first substantial question of law so framed in this appeal stand answered in negative and against the appellant. 15. The appeal stands dismissed. 16. No cost. Appeal dismissed.